[Austin-ghetto-list] Re: Emotions versus careful analysis

[Roger Baker]

Ahem, 

Lets get away from America as something reminiscent of a sports team
that feels good to support, armed with missiles under the inspired
strategic control of Powell, Rice, Chaney, and Rumsfeld choreographing
George B. (it is indicated below who is in charge of this policy).

Vietnam was arguably planned by smarter guys than we got running things
now. So the smarties-in-charge-now theory doesn't make me feel secure. 

We do know that the US government manipulated evidence to get us into
war in the case of Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (and the
Spanish American War) and that the CIA has been inept in recent years,
and that backfired CIA efforts under reagan probably facilitated the
development of bin Laden's network in the first place. 

We are used to being the main world cop, and using expensive weapons to
solve foreign relations problems while feeling secure because of our
oceans, and also being casualty-adverse as a bias of our foreign policy approach.

These guys in charge now are the same folks that have isolated us in
world opinion in the recent past by both rejecting the global warming
treaty and through pitching a flaky missile defense system, that most
scientists say won't work.

They decline to provide the evidence and the basis for making their
decisions until AFTER declaring a war and sending over arms: 

"...Powell's task in the campaign is to mobilize international support
for the United States and convince Muslim countries that Muslims are not
the target of U.S. revenge. 
The governments of most Muslim countries have said they oppose terrorism
but want to see the evidence that bin Laden was behind the attacks on
Sept. 11..."





Nobody knows what the evidence is that bin Laden is involved, versus
Iraq as some including apparently Israeli intelligence, say. The only
reason for the US to release this evidence now is not to convince the
American public, but instead to convince a sceptical world outside the
US to actively support whatever long range anti-terrorism policy we now
have in mind.

"...Even if we were to get Osama bin Laden tomorrow ... that would be
good, but it would not be the end. It's his lieutenants we have to get.
It's the whole network that has to be ripped up. We're talking several
thousand, maybe many thousands, we're not entirely sure. ... You can
find connections to them all around, and we have to get them all..."

So maybe we stay in Afghanistan which is about the size and population
of Texas until we root out the needed thousands? Do we meanwhile soften
out Iraqi and Arab/Israeli policy to help buy Arab support to use
Pakistan as a staging area for Afghanistan? Or as long as we're in the
neighborhood, wouldn't it be nice to deal with Iraq too, and maybe
settle a few old scores?  

The downside against a second war with Iraq is that Powell thinks this
would enrage the Arab world and prevent us from getting a consensus
against taking out the Taliban (which is actually pretty dependant on
some within Pakistan for support, from what I understand). 

Maybe the Iraq as instigator arguments I posted earlier from another
list were merely fabrications calculated to help fan an Iraqi war
hysteria. There are many who want to go to war with Iraq (but on a
higher level than our current bombing campaign), and as Schlesinger,
Kissinger, Quayle and Gingrich are now urging, as cited below. 

It could also be that Cheney thinks we need a plausible reason to have a
large military presence in the area to assure a "fair" share when world
oil peaks, probably within the decade. I would imagine that the renowned
difficulty of a ground war in Afghanistan would help assure partiotic
Americans that we need to have a major armed presence over there for a
very long time, as a sort of anti-terrorist insurance policy. 

The main difficulty, as I see it, is that our foreign policy is usually
conducted for narrow nationalistic special interests (like with global
warming and Kyoto) -- but now it has to pass the smell test as an
international anti-terrorist policy that is in the interests of the rest
of the world too, including Arabs. I think international devisions over
trade and due to world deflation are increasing even without this latest
terrorism problem. We will see before long, won't we?  -- Roger 



         ********************************


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/23/international/23WIRE-DIPL.html

THE INVESTIGATION

U.S. to Release Evidence Linking bin Laden to Attacks


By REUTERS

WASHINGTON, Sept 23 (Reuters) - The United States will soon release
evidence linking Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden to the attacks on
New York and Washington, Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Sunday.
 
Powell also predicted that the government in Pakistan, a key ally in the
U.S. campaign against bin Laden, would survive domestic challenges from
militant Islamists. 
In answer to reports that bin Laden was missing, Powell said the United
States would not have won until it caught every one of the thousands of
members of his group. 

Powell's task in the campaign is to mobilize international support for
the United States and convince Muslim countries that Muslims are not the
target of U.S. revenge. 
The governments of most Muslim countries have said they oppose terrorism
but want to see the evidence that bin Laden was behind the attacks on
Sept. 11. 

Powell told the NBC's "Meet the Press" program, "We are hard at work
bringing all the information together -- intelligence information, law
enforcement information." 
"I think in the near future, we will be able to put out a paper, a
document, that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have
linking him to this attack," he added. 
Other U.S. officials have been evasive on whether the United States will
release detailed evidence against bin Laden.
 
NEED TO BE CAREFUL
 
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, asked the same question on
"Fox News Sunday," said: "The United States is going to do nothing that
jeopardizes the investigation that is ongoing here. We are drawing in
investigative services, law enforcement, intelligence from a lot of
countries, and so we need to be careful with how we use this information."
 
Asked if she meant the United States intended to keep any evidence
secret to protect its sources and methods, she said: "Of course we're
going to be laying out a case and making a case. We're going to be
making a case to allies and friends, many of whom, by the way, are
already involved in developing that case. We will be making a case to
the American people." 
On Pakistan, Powell said the United States was sensitive to popular
opposition in the Islamic world to any U.S. attacks on Afghanistan,
where bin Laden is thought to be hiding. 
Religious parties held a second day of protests in Pakistan on Saturday,
but opposition to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's pledge to help
the United States track down bin Laden appeared to be waning.
 
Powell said, "Everything I have seen over the last two weeks convinces
me that President Musharraf made a courageous decision and he did it
with the full awareness of the potential domestic consequences." 

"He is supported by all of his military commanders and all of those in
the government, so I am confident that Pakistan will remain stable, and
I have no concerns about their nuclear program," he added.
 
TALIBAN SAY HE IS MISSING
 
The United States is moving military forces toward the Middle East and
South Asia in preparation for military aspects of its campaign, which
could include the use of ground forces to capture bin Laden and members
of his al Qaeda organization.
 
But the Taliban, who rule most of Afghanistan, said on Sunday that bin
Laden had disappeared and they could not deliver on an edict asking him
to leave the country. 

Powell said the Taliban might simply be seeking a way out of a difficult
predicament. He added: 

"Even if we were to get Osama bin Laden tomorrow ... that would be good,
but it would not be the end. It's his lieutenants we have to get. It's
the whole network that has to be ripped up. 

"We're talking several thousand, maybe many thousands, we're not
entirely sure. ... You can find connections to them all around, and we
have to get them all." 


      ************************************************

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010923/nysu001a_1.html



SOURCE: Newsweek

Pentagon Board Wants Hit on Iraq After Afghanistan, But Secretary of
State Powell Fears Strike Could Shatter Arab Anti-Terror Coalition


Rove and Hughes Not Included in Nightly Meeting of Principals

NEW YORK, Sept. 23 /PRNewswire/ -- At a two-day meeting last week of the
Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, which is chaired by hard-liner Richard
Perle, eminent conservatives including Henry Kissinger, James
Schlesinger, Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich reached a consensus that U.S.
military forces should strike Iraq shortly after an initial blow against
Afghanistan in response to the terror attack on New York and Washington,
Newsweek reports in the current issue. ``When the U.S. loses what may be
more than 6,000 people, there has to be reaction so that the world
clearly knows that things have changed,'' Gingrich tells Newsweek.

But Secretary of State Colin Powell fears a strike on Iraq could shatter
his efforts to build a worldwide anti-terror coalition. The aim would be
to pool intelligence on terrorists with ``global reach'' and to gain
police cooperation which he and National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice believe is at least as critical to cracking down on terror as
military action, report Foreign Editor Michael Hirsh and Diplomatic
Correspondent Roy Gutman in the October 1 issue of Newsweek (on
newsstands Monday, September 24).

The strike-Iraq contingent fears American credibility will be damaged if
the U.S. gets bogged down in Afghanistan. It also believes Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction could be used against America next, Newsweek
reports. There is ``a recognition that it will be very tough to get bin
Laden in the rocky and mountainous terrain of Afghanistan,'' said one
participant in the Pentagon meetings. ``There's a feeling we've got to
do something that counts -- and bombing some caves is not something that counts.''

On the other hand, Powell and deputies believe a full-blown military
strike on Baghdad would only kill many Iraqis, enrage the Arab world and
probably not dispose of Saddam, who has slowly won new allies with
promises of oil deals since 1991.

As the debate continues, the importance of conventional political
considerations are being played down. Newsweek reports that President
George W. Bush's closest domestic advisers, Karl Rove and Karen Hughes,
don't take part in the key nightly ``principals'' meetings of Powell,
Rice, Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. 

       (Read Newsweek's news releases at http://www.Newsweek.MSNBC.com.
                             Click "Pressroom.")